Dangerous observations
1) There was a great variation in social capital and collective action indices across villages and a number of factors emerged as important to explain this but it needs further investigation and research. These factors are:
§ Level of infrastructure endowment of the village. Households which were electrified as well as had access toward all weather roads had greater social money as they were in a better position toward communicate with other members of the same village, with the neighboring village as well as with the members of their networks which live outside the village as well as diversify their income as well as livelihood strategies.
§ NGO membership exerted considerable influence on both structural and cognitive components of social capital. They helped group formation and networking among homogenous members from landless groups who were hitherto marginalized and had little scope for operating from a common platform for pursuing mutually beneficial activities. Higher level of education of the household heads yielded greater information and communication options that were necessary for collective action albeit it did not exert important influence in the formation of structural and cognitive social capital. Similarly, there was no important class based differential with regard to structural social capital whilst it existed on description of cognitive social capital and group action Some exogenous variables such as threat of communal solidarity as distinguished in the case of Shosang, religiosity and unquestionable faith in management as found in Sirajpur appeared to have imprints in the facilitating collective action, which demand further research.
Some exogenous variables such as threat of communal solidarity as noted in the case of Shosang, as well as intrinsic quality or characteristics e.g., religiosity and unquestionable faith in leadership as found in Sirajpur can facilitate collective action, which demands further research. With regard to the analytical objective of the study, that is to relate social capital with economic growth and development parameters of analysis show:
§ There was one toward one correspondence between village level income as well as collective action index suggesting not only the high correlation between economic growth as well as collective action but also the usefulness of the methods followed in constructing the indices of social money. As an outcome variable of social money, collective action was often considered toward be a better way of manifestation of social money.
§ In conformity with the existing studies, we too found that land and agriculture no longer remained the major sources of household income. Household’s non-land physical assets and ability as well as opportunity to diversify income sources emerged as the major determinants of its income. There was both direct and indirect relationship between social capital and economic growth. Directly, both structural and cognitive components of social capital enhanced households’ income and indirectly through human capital and transportation endowment, it exerted influence on income. Structural social capital is a necessary but not enough condition for enhancing economic growth. What is needed is the trust and the collective action for achieving common good.
Can Social Moneycalled be ‘Money?
Please click here You can know health information from my web site.
Can Social Moneycalled be ‘Money?
Please click here You can know health information from my web site.
